Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:The Clickbait Tipping Point (Score 1) 313 313

Calm down everyone, did you have a bad day? I guess you react the same when reading "man killed by a falling tree" in the newspaper, like "stupid title, implying that trees are willingly killing people and trying to take over the world!", right?

I think the relevance is that a man died in a accident with a complex and autonomous machine (properly called "robots" since they exist in factories, like it or not), and that's not so easy in this case to predict everything that can go wrong, like, say "don't put your hand inside the press". Also, it's not so easy to say if the safety considerations are in charge of the user, or the machine's designer, and in what percentage.

Comment: Re:Slashdot guilty of pandering (Score 2) 313 313

It's a simple, if tragic, industrial accident

Nobody said the opposite.

FUD about completely fictional (and in this case entirely absent) AIs

Nobody ever talked about AIs behind that.

pandering to the fears of people who are afraid they will 'take over'.

Only valid for stupid people.

Comment: Re:Why is a robot different from any other machine (Score 1) 313 313

I think in this case it's different because the robot has an arm and hand (so to speak) capable of grabbing you, and a lot of possible complex movements, so it's much less predictable than, say, a press with respect to the safety of people around it.

+ - Worker killed by a robot at Volkswagen factory

m.alessandrini writes: A worker at a Volkswagen factory in Germany has died, after a robot grabbed him and crushed him against a metal plate.

This it perhaps the first severe accident of this kind in a western factory, and is sparkling debate about who is responsible for the accident, the man who was servicing the robot beyond its protection cage, or the robot's hardware/software developers who didn't put enough safety checks. Will this distinction be more and more important in the future, when robots will be more widespread?

Comment: Re:This will do WONDERS for Yahoo's image! (Score 2) 328 328

It's true, but Windows Vista used to ask "Are you sure" 3 times when changing a system settings, they could have put the same effort in warning you of similar activities done by installers, or restricting a little bit more what an installer can do, especially when the OS business model is relying 99% on 3rd party software.

Comment: Re:What's the score now? (Score 1) 77 77

Maintenance? Publishing free software themselves? Why? They could simply release the specs needed to interface with their hardware, and whoever wants would write its driver, much like the nouveau team is doing, but with much more difficulty. It would not be their business. And even if this means only 10 more users, it would be a gain anyway. But I know, I'm speaking too idealistically.

Comment: Re:Cheap stab against RMS's stance (Score 1) 77 77

This is the usual cheap stab against RMS's stance

One could argue that this is the usual cheap stab of RMS against hardware manufacturer. Hardware firmware is meant to be embedded in a piece of hardware, think microcontrollers that power everything today, and 99% of times you don't even know there are so many of them in a device.

Comment: What's their fear with that? (Score 0) 77 77

In all these years I've been wondering why they are so jealous about their drivers. I know, it's a very complicated matter of APIs, exposing internal details, etc. But it's not that someone can suddenly copy their silicon by knowing how it exchanges data with the computer, is it? And who exactly would be able to copy their silicon with their current technology?

Or are they afraid that a cheap manufacturer could use their precious drivers with a cheap, compatible card? But if their hardware is better than the cheaper ones, what's the point?

Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol